It's my birthday today too!

Happy birthday

@@darthlatitude2105 happy birthday to you too. My brothers birthday too.

@@darthlatitude2105 Happy Birthday, sir!

@@sartoriusrock You too!

I don't think that NFP is, as a rule, a good think. Sex should be open to conceiving children and NFP stop it from being such, due to our choose, to have sex when probability of having children is minimal.

True freedom, true trust, true faith

@@ironymatt bif you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886 this isn't a realistic hypothetical case, as no one has such certainty about the future. Even if it were possible to have future knowledge of the entirety of another person's life (prenatal screenings are notoriously inaccurate - a quick google search on that matter will be eye-opening), to believe it impossible for that person to live a life without any reprieve from suffering (which goes undefined in your scenario) stretches credulity.

@@ironymatt this is where exactly my line of argumentation was going when I`m talking of "suffering" and I`m talking about all his existence, I`m trying to express a case where you having intimacy with your partner will cause the existence of a child that will end up in hell. I`m not sure how you flesh out hell but I leave up to personal interpretation however is largely accepted that: 1) hell is a horrible place of suffering 2) you can`t escape hell 3) most mankind won`t be safe and will end up here. Given this why anyone should engage in sex. (nor protected or unprotected) why would anyone risk having a child that will experience the horrible eternity of hell, knowing that you can`t assure anyone salvation and you know most humans are doomed, and the end times are close. Thanks for your time

@@a.39886 what do you mean "this is where exactly my line of argumentation was going..."? If you meant hell you should have said so. That's a very different situation than suffering in this life. Read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It will help you see the Christian understanding about suffering in this life vs suffering in the next.

_"This is one of the Catholic teachings that simply made so much sense to me, that it helped me to convert!"_ In contrast to worshiping ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism?

@@twitherspoon8954 S T R A W

@@calebadcock363 _"S T R A W"_ How so? Are you denying that the worship of ritual human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that John 3:16 thing... Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

Can't remember who said it but someone when confronted with the cannibalism stick said that it's even worse than the other person thinks ... we believe that he's still alive whilst we are consuming Him 😂

​@@twitherspoon8954 LMAO, imagine being such an edgelord. You must be either an atheist or a protestant. Is a strawman because, in your ignorance [or willing trolling, whatever it is] you purposefully skip and ignore the whole point and meaning of such words in those verses. In other words, you forget about context, subtext and moral of the whole story and tradition. [Funnily enough, those are the archnemesis concepts for woke people, they just can't handle them...Go figure.]

That's a beautiful effort! Back when i was in Italy, one priest at the parish would do study sessions in encyclicals / papal documents too

@Symeon It is not contraception, because you are not using an unnatural force to stop a child. It is natural. There's a difference between letting Grandma die naturally and killing her. You are using other means when you use contraception. You also need a valid reason for NFP. For example, I need to dedicated time to my present children would be one. It isn't self-serving such as, I don't want more kids, this is the amount I want.

@Symeon When one uses contraception, they are leaving The Lord out of the picture. There are many instances where couples practice NFP and at times a child still comes about because it is The Lord's will. During the marital act, the husband emulates Christ and says with his body, "This is my body, given up for you." The woman signifies The Church and emulates the New Eve, which is Mary. "May it be done to me according to your word." When contraception is used the husband says, "This is my body, NOT given up for you." He becomes an anti-Christ The woman says, "May it NOT be done to me according to your word." She becomes an anti-church. Contraception also allows the evil one to slip in. If one's spouse is willing to use protection with him or her... who else is he or she going to use it with? Where with Natural Family Planning you can be more sure with your spouse as you are deeply obligated to your vows. In NFP you are always open to children, where with contraception, you can never be open to it. NFP always leaves it in God's hands. In NFP, if a child comes into the picture then the child is celebrated, where with contraception, it is clearly evident one is not open to children because as mentioned, you indicate you do not want The Lord intervening at all.

Contraception allows women to lower the risk of childbirth by spacing children. 70%+ conceptions get spontaneously aborted. The uterus' primary function is to protect the person born with it. Do you folks need a telegram from God Herself? The life of a living breathing woman is a million times more valuable to God than any conception.

@@jouzelfeather-pelt7686 How did contraception tear your family apart? if you don’t mind me asking. Im trying to gain more knowledge to be able to intellectually battle contraception in the future

@@symeon438NFP vs contraception is like refusing to eat vs purging. In both cases you avoid nutrition/reproducing intentionally, but in the former it’s by *not enagaging your digestive faculty at all* (and therefore also forgoing the pleasure that comes from eating) while in the latter it’s using the faculty pervertedly- eating for the pleasure and then purging so you don’t get nutrition/gain weight from it. We don’t always have to eat, but when we do it we have to do so without interfering in the digestive process. Similarly, we don’t need to always have sex (so we can avoid doing so during fertile times), but when we do have sex we can’t interfere with the reproductive process without perverting the faculty (here, of reproduction rather than digestion).

On Easter Sunday a beautiful young family stepped up to the communion rail, 9 boys and 1 daughter, and the beautiful mother was with child! They took the entire communion rail, and as the Priest began to distribute Jesus, he had a big smile and you could tell his heart was beaming! The children were all perfectly behaved and the parents were calm! God bless our large families!!

_"We do subscribe to the idea: "You can have a holy life or an easy life, but you can't have both."_ How is worshiping cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice holy?

I am one of eight and have no idea what life would be like without my siblings and their children. All 24 of them.

@@twitherspoon8954 Because it's the voluntary sacrifice made by God on our behalf, that we might be with Him in eternity.

@@brittoncain5090 _"Because it's the voluntary sacrifice made by God on our behalf..."_ But it wasn't. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

Saw this before I started watching. That spoiler totally ruined it for me.

For some reason my brain read that as "another stupid episode" -- I thought, 'wow, sometimes there's just no pleasing some people.' .... sorry I judged you.

dif you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886so you never have sex then?

More like, we understand that HV is wrong based on logic and scripture.

He did mention wanting a dual suit like Jordan Peterson’s so he could look like Harvey Dent/ Two Faced.

I like it

He does kind of looked like he was punched on the right side of his face.

@@Jamesmatise Probably from his jiujitsu classes. Laura has mentioned he talks about it a lot 😂

@jendoe9436 if that was his goal then he did a great job lol

Both will never be truly abolished as long as people think it's good to have sex only for fun or emotional satisfaction.

@@kaiserredgamer8943 That’s meant to be exclusive to a married man and woman until death. Check out _Casti Connubii_ and _Humanae Vitae_ sometime.

@@Wired4Life2 Understandable.

@@kaiserredgamer8943 1 if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886 Human living does not have to entirely be comprised of pain and suffering.

hif you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886 does this hypothetical ever occur in reality?

@@FrJohnBrownSJ Yes I absolutely think this happens in reality : Like to hear your answer would you decide to have intimacy or you would decide to not?

@@a.39886 I'd probably abstain.

@@FrJohnBrownSJ Appreciate your honest and thoughtful response. If you had 99%,90%,80%,70%, up to 1% chance that if you have intimacy with your partner you will have a child that will experience all of his existence on unbearable pain, torture and suffering would you have intimacy in a specific number? let`s say if I know that if I have intimacy my child have a 5% probability of experiencing this horrible suffering on all of his existence. I would take the risk.

f if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886so you never have sex then? And don’t intend to?

c if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886as you keep pasting the same question, my question to you is also the same. Do you therefore never have sex and plan never to have sex?

Nailed it ....man is by nature selfish .

@Symeon nfp does not eliminate the possibility of children it’s a statistical decrease. NFP could be achieved completely by accident from a family while contraception is a necessarily willful act.

@Symeon If you're against NFP, you're basically saying that married couples should only have sex during an ovulation window, or else not do it all. Also, NFP never blocks conception (avoiding is different) and never aborts, which is something contraception does.

@Symeon my wife and i do not use technology for NFP. And there is always a small chance of conception at any time, even during a menstrual cycle. So you are not contracepting in spirit.

@Symeon okay, well I'm going to what the Church allows. You can take it further if you wish. But please don't judge. It can make people scrupulous over things the Church has already allowed.

And yet he is definitely a minority on Eastern Orthodox real world. Serbia has the highest abortion rates in all Europe, even higher than Russian rates. Contraception is utterly stimulated among couples even though it can get condemned by some high caliber monks, who are necessarily celibate. Just read the formidable - and honest - theologian Metropolitan (‘in memorian’) Kalistos Ware’s book “The Orthodox Church”: 1984 Version _“(…) The use of contraceptives (…). Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father”._ 1993 Version _“Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail (…) in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences”._ Father John Mayendorff even explicitly defended the admissible nature of the “pill” inside Eastern Orthodoxy, so long it is used in the context of marriage: _“Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids the ‘artificial’ means, such as the ‘pill.’ But is there a real difference between the means called “artificial” and those considered ‘natural’? Is continence really ‘natural’? Is not any medical control of human functions ‘artificial’? Should it therefore be condemned as sinful? And finally, a serious theological question: is anything ‘natural’ necessarily ‘good’? For even St. Paul saw that continence can lead to ‘burning.’ Is not science able to render childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health? Straight condemnation of birth-control fails to give satisfactory answers to all these questions. It has never been endorsed by the Orthodox Church as a whole, even if, at times, local Church authorities may have issued statements on the matter identical to that of the Pope. In any case, it has never been the Church’s practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the ‘pill_ '” (Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, pg. 69 So if we leave the Internet and go to the real world Orthodoxy we’ll you get directed to the matter “ask you parish priest honestly” and many, many instances people are encouraged to do it so long as it stays within marital relationships (but under discretion). Is it really how we should evaluate the doctrines of faith and morals in the “religio vera”? Is it really how Christian morals go?

@@brunot2481 Met. Kallistos Ware was a semi-Nestorian. His opinions are botch. And a minority opinion don't mean wrong opinion

@@TheForbiddenRing ​ ​Brother, you don’t prove you accusation yet you accuse the deceased man of heresy in the worst (Dyerite) online fashion. More so, I think you brought a deflection without a cause, since he is not “teaching” his supposed position, but rather making a radiography of Eastern Orthodoxy’s moral teachings on sexuality. And it is true indeed. Go to real world EO and find for yourself. I guess much worse could have been said of Fr John Mayendorff, by the way, when he defended the “pill” could be either defended as moral or immoral and then pushed the EO trick-card: to accuse Catholic teachings for 2000 years on Christian morality of “legalism”. That is even disheartening to see this kind of relativism as profound as the one we are discussing here. Last but not least, I’m not even talking about EOs dogmatic theology on divorce and the indissolubility of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony: do you really believe there is a true foundation - let me say, a biblical basis - for Eastern Orthodoxy’s admission of divorces “up to the number three” and even three subsequent remarriages, simply forbidding the fourth marriage nevertheless? From where the arbitrary rule “four strikes you’re out” concerning divorce? Do we believe that the Eastern Orthodox confederation of fourteen autocephalous churches is indeed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord built upon Peter, under those teachings? Of course minority vs majority is not a thing. When pretty much all the East fell to Arianism, like what St Jerome taught, we had Rome to save the Church. The same with all the Eastern heresyarchs for instance.

@@TheForbiddenRing 2 if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886 One: I cannot answer an impossibility. Meaning, it is impossible to determine whether or not the child will be born with defects inasmuch as Sarah laughed at God at being told she would be with child in her old age or as impossible to predict when Christ will return. Two: the Saints speak about the "gift of suffering" in order to bring about our salvation. Read the story of Job. Three: Yes. It is imperative to the Sacrament of Matrimony to attempt to bear children as much as fasting and prayer is to receive the Sacrament of Communion worthily. It is impossible not to break the commandment of Paul the Apostle for women to bring forth children in order to be saved, and husbands will answer for their wives. Four: If genetic defects are likely, or suffering is very likely for the child, do not have relations with your spouse, or do not marry to begin with. Otherwise, begetting children is necessary, God-willing.

g if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886so you do have sex and plan never to have sex?

7if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

The Church states that it’s wrong to actively sterilize the sexual act, by any means (barrier, hormones, surgery, withdrawal, etc). But it isn’t wrong to discern which days to have sex and which days to avoid sex, based on a couples need to avoid a pregnancy. NFP is timed abstinence. The sexual act isn’t changed/thwarted or actively sterilized in any way. The intention is a different question. Couples can absolutely discern that they should not have any additional children, but it doesn’t mean that it is licit to sterilize the sexual act in any way. I hope this helps! I tried to find a podcast episode from Trent’s early podcasts explaining this but I couldn’t find it!

​@@abbiel2812 m

@@abbiel2812 I appreciate the thorough response. My wife and I have employed NFP in the past but lately I've felt uneasy about it. I understand that there's nothing inherently sinful about abstaining from sex, or even doing so to prevent pregnancy. But engaging in the marital act without a genuine openness to life feels wrong. I'd appreciate some rational distinctions to help shape my moral intuition.

Here’s Jimmy Akin talking about it…maybe this would be helpful. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eLWWg9Vlmq3coZc.html

Not a fan of NFP personally

b if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

5if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

7 if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

Yeah sure, but NFP is somehow okay 😂

2b if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

Liberal "catholics" doesn't care about teachings from the tradition.

a 0if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

These fathers clearly believed that sex must not just be open to life, but that it must not be devoid of the intention to concieve life as that is the primary purpose. It must never be devoid of love, and it is intrinsically uniting, but these are secondary to the primary purpose.

Saint Augstine Chapter 5 "For, although it be shameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorable to be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to give birth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage" Chapter 6 "For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault"

St. Gregory the Great Chapter XXVII "Husbands and wives are to be admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring; and, when, giving themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure, to consider that, though they go not outside wedlock yet in wedlock itself they exceed the just dues of wedlock. Whence it is needful that by frequent supplications they do away their having fouled with the admixture of pleasure the fair form of conjugal union."

Thanks for the comment. Noted! -Vanessa

Some day this gamergate will end

Exactly

8if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@d.c.3988 Some people (you) should not be allowed to pose conditional hypotheticals, they come up with the most extreme and narrow scenarios imaginable.

@@rabidchoco1 this is where exactly my line of argumentation was going when I`m talking of "suffering" and I`m talking about all his existence, I`m trying to express a case where you having intimacy with your partner will cause the existence of a child that will end up in hell. I`m not sure how you flesh out hell but I leave up to personal interpretation however is largely accepted that: 1) hell is a horrible place of suffering 2) you can`t escape hell 3) most mankind won`t be safe and will end up here. Given this why anyone should engage in sex. (nor protected or unprotected) why would anyone risk having a child that will experience the horrible eternity of hell, knowing that you can`t assure anyone salvation and you know most humans are doomed, and the end times are close. Would like to hear your response

6b if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886 there is no certainty about how people's lives play out. It's worth a shot.

@@chriszablocki2460 this is where exactly my line of argumentation was going when I`m talking of "suffering" and I`m talking about all his existence, I`m trying to express a case where you having intimacy with your partner will cause the existence of a child that will end up in hell. I`m not sure how you flesh out hell but I leave up to personal interpretation however is largely accepted that: 1) hell is a horrible place of suffering 2) you can`t escape hell 3) most mankind won`t be save and will end up here. Given this why anyone should engage in sex. (nor protected or unprotected) why would anyone risk having a child that will experience the horrible eternity of hell, knowing that you can`t assure anyone salvation and you know most humans are doomed, and the end times are close.

I think you may be glossing over the moral nature of the specific actions in questions too quickly. With NFP, there is nothing inherent in the sexual action that is disordered. You are engaging in sexual relations just the same as if you hadn't been paying any attention to fertility cycles. Women have natural infertile periods in which couples can already engage in the marital act. With any form of contraception, there is a specific action that is taken that is inherently disordered; an action that has the purpose to disrupt the natural process of the body, e.g. a pill taken that prevents fertilized eggs from remaining in the uterus to develop or stopping ovulation all together. It doesn't seem that the fact that unitive and procreative aspects of marriage can be seen as distinct causes an issue either. Couples always have had the ability to choose to space births for prudential reasons (e.g. they could refrain all together for a time). It is just that modern technology makes engaging in the marital act during infertile parts of the menstrual cycle more reliable in times when a couple is prudentially trying to space births. Intentionality is, of course, an entire different aspect to the question of morality that can be relevant here, as well. And, as I am sure you are well aware, it is possible to use NFP in a manner that would still be sinful (i.e. you need a good reason to be using it). However, intentionality is not what the primary difference is in moral kind between NFP and contraception. It is the inherent moral quality of the act itself (using natural fertility knowledge vs. medical modifications that disrupt natural processes). God bless!

So my problem is that artificial birth control and NFP are somewhat analogous to losing weight by dieting vs. losing weight by taking a pill that makes you vomit. Losing weight is in fine in proper limits, but intentionally causing vomiting is not. If you are taking a pill to regulate your cycle so that it is natural to how your body would work when healthy that is different to using the pill to manipulate your cycle to avoid children. Sort of like taking fiber so you excrete waste regularly is fine but taking drugs to give yourself diarrhea intentionally would be immoral.

@@anthonymarchetta8796 I take it you're a Christian Scientist then? I mean, dieting is OK, but taking a medication to lose weight would not be. Eating fiber for regularity is fine, but taking a laxative would not be. So you don't deliberately take medications that effect your bodily functions?

@@remycallie No, I'm not. I'm Catholic and I agree with you. That was my point. Dieting is analogous to NFP and taking laxatives to lose weight is analogous to artificial contraception.

@@remycallie Oh, wait, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You're missing the key distinctions. I take medications to try and help my body function correctly, how it should be responding if there wasn't some sort of problem. That is different than taking medication to manipulate my body into some sort of idealized form. Laxatives are okay if you are constipated - not for weight loss.

It's not, as long as the semen ends up in the place where it belongs...😊

0if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

3b if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

@@a.39886 - who guaranteed that there will never be any suffering?? Everyone suffers.

@@Crusader33ad this is where exactly my line of argumentation was going when I`m talking of "suffering" and I`m talking about all his existence, I`m trying to express a case where you having intimacy with your partner will cause the existence of a child that will end up in hell. I`m not sure how you flesh out hell but I leave up to personal interpretation however is largely accepted that: 1) hell is a horrible place of suffering 2) you can`t escape hell 3) most mankind won`t be safe and will end up here. Given this why anyone should engage in sex. (nor protected or unprotected) why would anyone risk having a child that will experience the horrible eternity of hell, knowing that you can`t assure anyone salvation and you know most humans are doomed, and the end times are close.1

@@a.39886 -. Interestingly, you’re repeating the heresy of Donatism and Gnosticism. It’s presumptive on your part. You’re not God and bringing a child into this earth may give him life eternal. The exact opposite is true. If the father of a household is faithful, the children are overwhelmingly likely to be saved.

@@Crusader33ad are you ok with most of mankind going to hell as narrow is the path that goes to salvation and wide the path to damnation. If for saving 1 child 10 must suffer eternal pain is that ok with you ?

Do you even know anything about NFP?

@@fruzsimih7214 pray, tell me what it means. I mean, it's not like I have Google or anything. Please enlighten me.

You perhaps didn't watch up till 15.55 if you watched the video at all.

​​@@mandatumnovum7127 what Pope said makes no sense tho. "Sometimes we tolerate small evil to achieve good" okay. "but we can't allow ourselves to do moral evil" wait, you JUST SAID we have to tolerate it if it's small! "we can't allow ourselves to justify contraceptive intercourse" what the heck is NFP supposed to be than??? It's more life proof then a condom! It's RIDICULOUS. Also, Trent adresses none of what I said. Nobody does, because this teaching goes against the Bible and it's wrong.

​@@mitromney Tolerate is quite different from perpetrate. The point is that It is never morally admissible to perpetrate an evil for a 'greater good'. But beyond all that, I think Trent has done a good and fairly comprehensive job here. Problem is that your comments do demonstrate that you are operating on a different moral/intellectual plane, so I really don't know what to add to help you beyond what is already in the video. Trent has explicated the Catholic positions pretty well so I think we're in a take it or leave it situation here as far as your own take goes. Cheers.

It’s the principle of double effect. For the difference between doing evil and tolerating evil, see 3 below: The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect: 1 The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. 2 The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. 3 The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. 4 The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

Telling a married couple to abstain from sex and expecting good from it is proof that celibates control Church teaching on sex.

Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.

​@@twitherspoon8954 have you tried not talking to straw men?

@@twitherspoon8954 lol you seem very bothered :)

I know. Those who reject church teaching on contraception can’t help it.

@@calebadcock363 church teaching is one thing. Making a video criticizing open discussion, the importance of a press, and appealing to insane slippery slope fallacies is a video made for a very closed minded audience.

@@tookie36 - that’s an assertional fallacy.

@@Crusader33ad if you’re aware of fallacies then you’ll see plenty in Trent’s video. If something is obvious then we need not worry ourselves flushing out all the details. Especially on a KZfaq comment thread. You’re a grown individual I’m sure you can figure it out

​@@tookie36was one of the slippery slope fallacies the effects Paul VI said contraception would have on society?

Lol

I don’t think most people would be able to have 10 children if they tried, honestly.

7b if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

90 percent of Catholics don’t

Because it involves issues of ethics. Sex can create new humans. When that aspect of is willfully removed from sex, there are ethical implications.

@@AngelineProductions Of course there are. But it's not for the eunuchs to be concerned with.

@@adam7402 i mean if you’re referring to church leaders, that is absolutely part of their concern. It’s in the area of morality, and that’s what they’re concerned with (or, should be…)

@@adam7402 But can't I use the same logic to say that fornication is okay? It is the rules of said celibates that provide the clearest and most coherent defense of the institution of marriage in the first place, so I see no problem with the further rules the Church imposes.

More like 95%.

@@tomato-ir9xs 7b if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering. Would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?

No they shouldn’t

Hm. Wonder why Jesus didn’t know as good as you did Jacob. If he only heard your voice back 2000 years ago, maybe he would have chose a first woman pope, and a bunch of transgender apostles.

@@r.m5883 You know that Jesus is a fictional character, right?

@@twitherspoon8954 what we know infallibly is you are a troll. 😊

@@mrjeffjob If you have evidence that the Bible figure known as Jesus existed, provide it. However, it is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed. Paul made up the Jesus fiction in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy failed to fulfill. Shouldn't we expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed? Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.

even though the word “Pope” is not found directly in the Bible, the underlying meaning of that word is. The word “Pope” is derived from the Greek word, “pappas,” which means, "father" (Latinized as “papa”). In Isaiah 22, verses 19-24, we see God telling Shebna, who was the chief minister of the House of David, that he will be replaced in his office by Eliakim, and that Eliakim will have authority and will be a “father” [papa; pope] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. Also in this passage, God says that Eliakim will have the key of the House of David and that he “shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” This passage from Isaiah was obviously on the Lord’s mind when he said to Peter, in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church...I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” Eliakim was the chief minister in the House of David. What is the new House of David? The Church. Who is the chief minister in the Church? Peter, and his successors - the Popes. Eliakim was given the key of the kingdom. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom. Eliakim had the authority to shut and to open. Peter had the authority to bind and loose. Eliakim was a father to the those in the House of David, just so Peter is a father to those in the new House of David - the Church. So, since Peter is a “father” to those in the Church, just as Eliakim was a “father” to those in the House of David; and the word “Pope” means “father;” then we can say that the underlying meaning of the word “Pope” is actually found in the Bible - right there in Isaiah 22. And, we can further say, that Catholic belief regarding the role of the Pope is also found right there in Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, as well as in other parts of Scripture. (from the bible christian society website) For more(anyone interested in the truth), I share a link to the audio episode>>> The Gospel of Matthew "The King and His Kingdom" with Professor Tim Gray Epi 8 Peter's Confession The Father (God) revealed to Peter and he confessed to Jesus: "You are the Christ, and the Son of the living God What does it mean when Jesus said: " You are Peter, and and on this rock, I will build my church."

@rooforlife that is all false doctrine of a idolatrousse religion.

@@eddyrobichaud5832 That is your opinion for anyone interested in the truth should listen to the audio series I share in the previous comment.

@rooforlife I did and all I can say is if you read the bible many places where the catholic religion twisted the doctrine of the bible.

@@eddyrobichaud5832 You listen to all 13 episodes of The Gospel of Matthew "The King and His Kingdom" in less than 3 hours